Preparing for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and College of American Pathologists (CAP) Inspections.

Clinical laboratories have many regulations to follow, requiring complete adherence to specific standards and regulations in order to be granted accreditation. As part of the accreditation process, a laboratory must be inspected. Whether it is an initial or biennial inspection, there are some standard tasks and duties a laboratory can do to prepare in advance to reduce stress, improve the inspection process, and reduce the risk of getting a deficiency. Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP) is an important part of preparing a clinical laboratory for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and College of American Pathologists (CAP) inspections. GCLP standards have been developed by CLIA and were developed with the goal of providing a sole source of requirements that clinical laboratories using human patient samples need to follow to ensure reproducible and reliable clinical laboratory results. The Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP) of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) also has ongoing activities and guidelines for clinical laboratories to follow. Although this is a voluntary program, it is driven by peer review, education, and compliance to established performance standards. CAP is focused on laboratory improvement and views its inspections as collaborations between inspector and laboratory. The CAP checklists, based on their standards for good lab practice, are used by inspectors to ensure that each inspection is consistent and thorough and to enable CAP to determine if the laboratory meets the standards for accreditation. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Validation of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) for Chromosome 5 Monosomy and Deletion.

In order to comply with regulations set by established local, state, and federal agencies and other regulatory organizations, such as the College of American Pathologists and the International Organization for Standardization, a clinical laboratory needs to develop procedures for the processes of validating laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) and establishing performance specifications for these assays prior to use in clinical testing. This is applicable to all fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays. Even Food and Drug Administration-approved FISH assays must undergo some form of verification before implementation in the clinical laboratory. The process of validating an assay as an LDT must include a plan, a procedure, and a report. The validation studies described here include metaphase and interphase FISH methodology for identification of the LSI EGR1/D5S23, D5S721 dual-color probe, which labels distinct biomarkers consistent with myeloid hematologic disorders, including myelodysplasias and acute myeloid leukemia. © 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Basic Protocol 1: Validation plan for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) probes for chromosome 5 monosomy and deletion Support Protocol: Normal cut-off calculation Basic Protocol 2: Validation procedure for FISH probes for chromosome 5 monosomy and deletion Basic Protocol 3: Validation report for FISH probes for chromosome 5 monosomy and deletion.

Quality Assurance of Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening (NIPS) for Fetal Aneuploidy Using Positive Predictive Values as Outcome Measures.

Non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) based on the analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal plasma has been shown to have high sensitivity and specificity. We gathered follow-up information for pregnancies in women with test-positive NIPS results from 2014-2017 with quarterly assessments of positive predictive values (PPVs). A non-inferiority analysis with a minimum requirement of 70%/80% of expected performance for trisomy 21 and 18 was used to ensure testing met expectations. PPVs were evaluated in the context of changes in the population receiving testing. For all quarters, PPVs for trisomies 21 and 18 exceeded the requirement of > 70% of the reference PPV. Overall observed PPVs for trisomy 21, 18, 13 and monosomy X were similar for women aged <35 (90.9%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 88.6-92.7%) compared to women with advanced maternal age (94.5%, 95% CI 93.1-95.6%). Despite significant declines in test-positive rates from 1.18% to 0.62% for trisomy 21, and from 0.75% to 0.48% for trisomies 18, 13 and monosomy X combined, PPVs remained stable through the four-year interval. We conclude that quarterly evaluation of PPV provides an overview of past testing and helps demonstrate long-term consistency in test performance, even in the setting of increasing use by women with lower a priori risks.

A novel sequencing-based vaginal health assay combining self-sampling, HPV detection and genotyping, STI detection, and vaginal microbiome analysis.

The composition of the vaginal microbiome, including both the presence of pathogens involved in sexually transmitted infections (STI) as well as commensal microbiota, has been shown to have important associations for a woman's reproductive and general health. Currently, healthcare providers cannot offer comprehensive vaginal microbiome screening, but are limited to the detection of individual pathogens, such as high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV), the predominant cause of cervical cancer. There is no single test on the market that combines HPV, STI, and microbiome screening. Here, we describe a novel inclusive vaginal health assay that combines self-sampling with sequencing-based HPV detection and genotyping, vaginal microbiome analysis, and STI-associated pathogen detection. The assay includes genotyping and detection of 14 hrHPV types, 5 low-risk HPV types (lrHPV), as well as the relative abundance of 31 bacterial taxa of clinical importance, including Lactobacillus, Sneathia, Gardnerella, and 3 pathogens involved in STI, with high sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility. For each of these taxa, reference ranges were determined in a group of 50 self-reported healthy women. The HPV sequencing portion of the test was evaluated against the digene High-Risk HPV HC2 DNA test. For hrHPV genotyping, agreement was 95.3% with a kappa of 0.804 (601 samples); after removal of samples in which the digene hrHPV probe showed cross-reactivity with lrHPV types, the sensitivity and specificity of the hrHPV genotyping assay were 94.5% and 96.6%, respectively, with a kappa of 0.841. For lrHPV genotyping, agreement was 93.9% with a kappa of 0.788 (148 samples), while sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 92.9%, respectively. This novel assay could be used to complement conventional cervical cancer screening, because its self-sampling format can expand access among women who would otherwise not participate, and because of its additional information about the composition of the vaginal microbiome and the presence of pathogens.

Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing: Increased Cervical Cancer Screening Participation and Incorporation in International Screening Programs.

In most industrialized countries, screening programs for cervical cancer have shifted from cytology (Pap smear or ThinPrep) alone on clinician-obtained samples to the addition of screening for human papillomavirus (HPV), its main causative agent. For HPV testing, self-sampling instead of clinician-sampling has proven to be equally accurate, in particular for assays that use nucleic acid amplification techniques. In addition, HPV testing of self-collected samples in combination with a follow-up Pap smear in case of a positive result is more effective in detecting precancerous lesions than a Pap smear alone. Self-sampling for HPV testing has already been adopted by some countries, while others have started trials to evaluate its incorporation into national cervical cancer screening programs. Self-sampling may result in more individuals willing to participate in cervical cancer screening, because it removes many of the barriers that prevent women, especially those in low socioeconomic and minority populations, from participating in regular screening programs. Several studies have shown that the majority of women who have been underscreened but who tested HPV-positive in a self-obtained sample will visit a clinic for follow-up diagnosis and management. In addition, a self-collected sample can also be used for vaginal microbiome analysis, which can provide additional information about HPV infection persistence as well as vaginal health in general.

Incidence of X and Y Chromosomal Aneuploidy in a Large Child Bearing Population.

BACKGROUND: X&Y chromosomal aneuploidies are among the most common human whole-chromosomal copy number changes, but the population-based incidence and prevalence in the child-bearing population is unclear. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data leveraged a routine non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) using parental genotyping to estimate the population-based incidence of X&Y chromosome variations in this population referred for NIPT (generally due to advanced maternal age). RESULTS: From 141,916 women and 29,336 men, 119 X&Y chromosomal abnormalities (prevalence: 1 in 1,439) were identified. Maternal findings include: 43 cases of 45,X (40 mosaic); 30 cases of 47,XXX (12 mosaic); 3 cases of 46,XX uniparental disomy; 2 cases of 46,XY/46,XX; 23 cases of mosaicism of unknown type; 2 cases of 47,XX,i(X)(q10). Paternal findings include: 2 cases of 47,XXY (1 mosaic); 10 cases of 47,XYY (1 mosaic); 4 partial Y deletions. CONCLUSIONS: Single chromosome aneuploidy was present in one of every 1,439 individuals considered in this study, showing 47,XXX; 47,XX,i(X)(q10); 47,XYY; 47,XXY, partial Y deletions, and a high level of mosaicism for 45,X. This expands significantly our understanding of X&Y chromosomal variations and fertility issues, and is critical for families and adults affected by these disorders. This current and extensive information on fertility will be beneficial for genetic counseling on prenatal diagnoses as well as for newly diagnosed postnatal cases.

The human genome project: exploring its progress and successes and the ethical, legal, and social implications.

The human genome project (HGP) began in 1990 with a projected completion time of 15 years. In that time period, the project expects to complete the sequencing of the total human genome, develop genetic maps to assign genes to specific regions on chromosomes, to identify genes associated with disease, and to develop new technologies for furthering genetic research and clinical testing. The project also intends to investigate ethical, social, and legal issues as well as to provide education about genetics to professionals and to the public. The HGP has seen many achievements yet has much to discover before completion. This article attempts to review the HGP and discuss its significance and various ethical issues in genetics.